Deliberative Polling

James S. Fishkin has pioneered (and trademarked) deliberative polling as a way of combining the generalizability of a random sample opinion survey with the citizen–expert and citizen–citizen dialogue characteristic of high-quality public engagement. Deliberative polls also usually include a media component aimed at bringing the experience of deliberation to a wider audience.

The goal of deliberative polling is to find out what a random sample of citizens would think if they had the time and resources necessary to carefully consider an issue. In contrast, most public opinion surveys include many subjects with little knowledge or engagement on a topic, resulting in unstable answers and superficial opinions. Consistent with the political theory of deliberative democracy, deliberative polls include an opportunity for participants to hear from carefully selected experts on multiple sides of an issue followed by an opportunity to discuss the issue with fellow participants in cooperation with a trained moderator.

While most deliberative polls do not focus on science issues, several have looked at energy topics or have dealt with policy issues such as health care and housing that require the consideration of social science research findings.

The main challenge facing deliberative polling is the cost associated with assembling a large enough random sample (at least several hundred, sometimes more) of a population in a single place. Most forms of citizen deliberation use only a small number of participants (often fewer than 20). Whereas other engagement formats aimed at fostering citizen deliberation may request that participants work together to produce a joint report or consensus statement, deliberative polls rely on pre- and postparticipation questionnaires with participants to assess the impact of participation. Finally, like most forms of public engagement, deliberative polls are meant only to provide guidance to decision makers, but participants who spend a weekend focused on a single issue may come to expect that their views should hold more weight. While the process of deliberative polling has resulted in opinion change on some issues (but not necessarily all), it consistently leads to increased knowledge and issue understanding.

Fishkin has also argued that, given the results of deliberative polling, governments should consider implementing a national day of citizen discussion—that is, a deliberation day—prior to major elections. Such a day would be aimed at enhancing citizens' consideration of electoral candidates.